Supreme Court upholds Kerala HC directions to SIT to probe Hema Committee report, declines to restrain police action

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard special leave petitions challenging the Division Bench orders of the Kerala High Court in matter arising out of the Justice Hema Committee report on complaints from women in the Malayalam film industry. The petitions chiefly contested paragraphs of the High Court's orders dated 10.09.2024 and 14.10.2024 directing the State to place the Committee report before a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and to proceed suo motu where cognizable offences were indicated.

The Court granted permission to file one SLP (D.No.55412/2024) but declined to stay or interfere with the High Court's directions, observing that police could not be restrained from proceeding in accordance with law. The Supreme Court summarised that the Kerala High Court had directed the SIT to treat the Hema Committee report as "information" for purposes of initiating inquiries and to proceed cautiously with sensitivity to privacy and fair trial rights. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Under criminal jurisprudence, once information is received or otherwise an officer-in-charge of a police station has reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, he is duty bound to proceed in accordance to law as prescribed under Section 176 of BNSS. There can be no direction to injunct or restrain the police officer from proceeding in accordance to law. This is exactly what the Division Bench has directed in the order dated 14.10.2024 in paragraph 5 thereof. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court is monitoring the action taken on a regular basis as is apparent from the subsequent orders passed by it." The Court emphasised that affected persons could approach the High Court if they alleged harassment or coercion by the SIT.

Background The dispute arose after the State of Kerala constituted a three-member committee in 2017 at the request of the Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) to examine working conditions and complaints in the Malayalam film industry; the committee, chaired by retired High Court Judge Justice K. Hema, submitted its report on 31.12.2019. Activists sought the report under the RTI Act but the request was denied. In August–September 2024, several writ petitions and a writ appeal were filed in the Kerala High Court seeking production of the report or directions for action on its recommendations; the Division Bench required the State to place a copy of the Hema Committee report, with annexures, before the SIT and approved an SIT to investigate.

The High Court recorded that many statements in the Committee report suggested commission of cognizable offences and directed the SIT, on registration of a crime, to contact victims/survivors and record statements while respecting that "there cannot be any compulsion of the witnesses to give statement." The High Court further ordered that the SIT "shall, in particular, be mindful of the sensitivities that are required to be observed during investigation" and admonished media to avoid trial by publicity, observing that "trial by media would throw to the winds the guarantee of fundamental rights." Petitioners — including a film producer who claimed no FIR was lodged against him and witnesses who alleged coercion — moved the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's directions, especially paragraph 5 of the 14.10.2024 order which contemplated steps under Section 176 BNSS where witnesses did not cooperate.

The State and other respondents informed the Supreme Court that the SIT had registered preliminary enquiries and FIRs and that the High Court continued to monitor the investigation through subsequent orders (28.10.2024, 07.11.2024 and 27.11.2024). The Supreme Court held that no useful purpose would be served by retaining the petitions and left the remedies to the High Court, granting liberty to affected persons to seek redressal there. The petitions were disposed of with leave to approach the Kerala High Court for specific grievances, and the Supreme Court declined to enjoin the police from acting where there was reason to suspect cognizable offences.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 171 (SLP(C) Nos. 25250-25251 of 2024 & connected matters) Case Title: Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R. Basant, Senior Counsel; Mr. Siddharth Dave, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ranjith Kumar, Senior Counsel (for State of Kerala); Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Senior Counsel (for WCC); Ms. Parvathi Menon A., Counsel (for Kerala State Women Commission); Ms. Sandhya Raju, Counsel (for other respondents)